![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
EDUCAUSE Quarterly
|
![]() |
Asset Management and Sustainability at the University of RichmondAsset Management and Sustainability at the University of Richmond
In January 2008, Ed Ayers, president of the University of Richmond, signed the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment. This commits the university to creating a comprehensive action plan to move toward climate neutrality. Even before “sustainability” became one of the university’s overall goals, Information Services (IS) had already established a sustainability program through reusing (redeploying) and recycling computers. In line with this goal, the IS department at the university seeks to reduce costs and increase efficiency, with a special sensitivity for the environmental impact of the e-waste generated on campus. When I began here at the University of Richmond, I was hired to purchase the hardware and software for all university desktop systems. (My title is procurement coordinator for Information Services.) Shortly after my arrival, my job description changed to encompass the tracking of desktop computer assets due to the overwhelming need for managing the life cycle of these assets from cradle (purchase) to grave (disposal). Asset management involves knowing:
With this information and an accurate estimate of the campus community’s varying needs for technology, you can determine the most efficient distribution of your inventory among users across campus. For example:
Asset management is so important because we believe in providing our customers with superior service while managing and reducing costs wherever and whenever we can. I sold this issue internally on the basis of improved efficiencies, reduced costs, and increased security, as well as the ability to create an audit trail to ensure that our objectives were being met. Management supported this project because we did the research necessary to justify making the change. It also positioned us to establish a “best practices” recycling program, which we feel could be a model that our peer institutions would want to emulate. The IS sustainability goals are to:
An overarching goal is to reduce the cost of desktop computing.
Music: “Aheste” by Fahir Atakoglu Reusing ComputersOne way to achieve sustainability (and reduce costs) is through the reuse of computer assets. A typical desktop will have a useful life here at the university for a period of six years, with a three-year cycle for primary systems and another three-year cycle for secondary (refurbished) systems. Our total inventory at any given time includes about 4,500 computer systems plus 5,000 to 6,000 peripherals (printers and scanners, for example). The peripherals generally stay in the same place throughout their life cycle, although some return to Information Services Inventory storage for secondary use. About one-third of the computer systems in our total inventory consist of secondary systems. Annual System RotationsIn January each year I meet with each department that is scheduled to have their primary systems replaced to discuss their anticipated needs. At the same time, I look at areas where secondary systems can be applied and begin to build a list of systems that will be replaced that year. About 2,100 primary systems are located around campus; of these, approximately 1,000 are in labs and student access areas including 75 in the main library. Secondary systems are used in computer lounges in the residence halls, for example, where students gather to do homework and surf the web rather than going to a computer lab or the library. The computer lounges provide 24-hour access to computer systems. Availability of the secondary systems fluctuates with the time of year, with the biggest IS Inventory during the fall (several hundred machines) following our summer cleanup of primary systems cycled out of use and into inventory storage (see Figure 1). Sometimes by March or April we run out of secondary systems and users will have to wait until June, when we start deploying newly purchased primary systems.
Systems assigned to full-time faculty and staff — as well as many labs, classrooms, and public computing environments — are rotated out on a three-year replacement cycle. Those systems are returned to the IS department and cleaned of dirt and debris; the hard drives are scrubbed of data and reimaged (see Figure 2). One FTE staff person spends about half of her time managing the process of refurbishing 300 computers. During this summer project we employ one full-time student worker to manage the asset management database, and three FTE student workers support the summer clean-up effort. During the school year, one student manages the system 15 hours a week, while two to three part-time students support the process. We estimate student labor supporting this program to be about $27,000.
The refurbished systems are then cascaded down into secondary environments and set aside for maintenance and spare parts needs. Secondary environments include:
We also use secondary systems to replace older systems used in research labs. This allows the research projects to continue even when funding is gone. Some secondary systems require more support than new systems and have more problems that require maintenance. The costs are outweighed by the benefits, such as the ability to support programs without additional costs for new equipment. We redeploy 300 computers annually as secondary systems rather than buying new ones, saving an estimated $360,000 a year. Reuse RulesWe apply certain rules to systems that enter the secondary stage of our reuse cycle, and we communicate these to the campus community:
Upsides and DownsidesReusing computers in this cascading process has some obvious benefits for the IS department and the university as a whole:
On the other hand, reusing computers has some challenges:
System RetirementsSecondary systems are returned to IS Inventory when they reach the end of their useful life or are no longer needed. Systems that are in good working order, but no longer meet our minimum requirements for use on campus, are evaluated for donation or disposal. Regardless of whether they are donated or sent to the recycler, systems go through the same process:
Screenshots Recycling ComputersTen or so years ago most of our equipment went to charity through a student organization on campus that would refurbish computers and then donate them to the underprivileged. Eventually this student organization folded. We then contracted an electronic-waste recycling company to pick up the equipment. They charged us by the pound to destroy equipment. This got rid of the equipment, but there were a few things missing in this process. While we wiped drives using the DOD 3 pass process and recorded the serial number of the asset before it left campus, we did not have a complete audit trail from the vendor. They did not record the asset information — their truck would pull away with our systems and that was the end of it. This made me uncomfortable. Where exactly was our equipment going? This prompted me to identify what we needed in order to securely and cost-effectively dispose of assets that we no longer needed in an environmentally responsible way. The goal was to find an e-waste partner that would:
During the request for proposal process we met with each vendor individually. When we met with the vendor that was our e-waste disposal provider at the time, they informed us that not all of our equipment was being destroyed, even though we had assumed it was. They told us that if they found value in something, they sold it. They did not get the new contract. We contracted with Redemtech because they fit all our requirements for e-waste recycling, including close tracking of our assets. In addition, they continue the sustainable process by remarketing the usable equipment and giving the university part of the profits, which are now credited toward the cost of the recycling. Remarketing of used equipment for resale helps offset the costs of environmentally responsible disposal and further extends equipment’s useful life cycle. Given the quick loss of value over time, a faster turnaround yields a higher return. The speed of turnaround is thus a factor to consider when evaluating vendors. Another factor is whether the vendor refurbishes equipment for resale, which increases its value. In a situation like ours, where the vendor shares profits, the returns further offset costs of the program. In choosing an e-waste recycling vendor, there are certain steps to follow (and avoid). Do:
Don’t:
Donating EquipmentDonating is an easy way to get rid of your equipment and has a positive impact on community relationships, but there are audit and liability concerns to take into account when donating systems. Mainly, you can’t guarantee that the system won’t end up in a landfill. Some ways to reduce liability are to establish certain requirements:
Another factor to consider is the loss of potential income from remarketing of old systems. Depending on the university’s goals, a combination of resale and donations of old equipment might be the best solution. You can also, for an additional cost, arrange with your vendor to provide asset recovery for equipment you’d prefer to donate. Simply send those requesting donation to your vendor to handle the transactions. Reducing CostsThe overall funds we save by reusing systems on campus is hard to measure, and it could also be looked at as cost avoidance. By switching to Redemtech, we reduced the cost of equipment disposal through their remarketing of our old equipment. Sometimes the equipment is sold as an entire unit, and sometimes the parts are sold. It is not unusual for us to recover 50 to 75 percent of the recycling cost through the remarketing. Sometimes you can make a profit from this, depending on the quality of the equipment disposed of. Through Redemtech’s audit processes we are able to quantify sustainability data and provide a carbon footprint as it is related to electronic waste (see Table 1). To date we have:
Table 1. Redemtech Metrics on Carbon Offset/Landfill Credit, University of Richmond
Asset Management Lessons LearnedWhen I first arrived at the University of Richmond, some people felt that performing hardware and software inventories invaded the privacy of faculty and staff. This leads to the first lesson: Lesson 1: Explain the need and purpose for asset inventories and gain buy-in from upper management. Historically, once a physical inventory was complete, assets were tracked manually in a Microsoft Office Access database. Equipment arrived and was assigned an asset number. Then the asset information including the make, model, and serial number was loaded into the spreadsheet. This method works as long as the asset remains in the same location for its lifetime. While everyone tried to record each time an asset was moved or redeployed, this was not the main focus for the technicians. Their main goal was to get a user up and running. Hence, the second lesson: Lesson 2: Ensure that your technicians understand your goals and the purpose for tracking assets. In 2004 we deployed a client-based system to track equipment via the network. At first, many people looked at this system as “big brother is watching us.” We reassured users that the sole reason for the system was to track hardware assets for audit and planning purposes, not to view their data files or e-mail. The new system deployed a client on each Windows-based system. Monthly, a request goes out to all systems and record any changes to the asset. This provides us real-time data. This information became a valuable tool for planning software and hardware upgrades, budget planning, and resource allocation. The increased efficiency has greatly improved our workflow. The community reactions led to the third lesson: Lesson 3: Communicate to your user community what the system does, why it is important, and how it will benefit them. ConclusionLooking back at the progress in our asset management and e-waste disposal programs, it’s clear that certain factors contributed heavily to our success: Management support, including support from the highest levels Our reuse and recycling program actually started 10 years ago. After the university’s president signed the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment, a meeting was held to communicate sustainability efforts across campus to the university’s leadership. We were able to explain our asset management program and how IS efforts feed up into the university’s sustainability objectives, gaining further high-level support for the program. Centralization of purchasing, receiving, deployment, and disposal Having a centralized IS department makes our asset management, reuse, and recycling program possible across campus. Centralization is key to this process of primary and secondary deployments, from purchasing to disposal — from cradle to grave. Campuses with centralized control of technology assets might find as much value in this approach as we have, but large universities with decentralized, departmental or college-based IT purchasing might not be able to implement a similar system. Policies promoting sustainable efforts Again, campus support and acceptance, from top administrators to faculty and student users, feeds success of our reuse and recycling program. Widely accepted policies explaining the benefits of the program have made a difference in its adoption. Reduced costs/cost avoidance Although sustainability initiatives benefit the environment, lowering costs and avoiding new purchases through reuse of systems strengthens the argument on campuses facing tight budgets. Sustainable data (the ability to provide an audit trail for our assets and metrics about the program’s success) In the past two years we have begun collecting data on our sustainability efforts and their impact across campus. Having the metrics will help us further streamline our processes and increase the benefits, but we’re not there yet. For example, we have implemented power management on desktops to reduce their energy use in off hours and plan to take further steps to build on the success of our asset management program. Taking responsibility for proper disposal of our technology assets By choosing an e-waste vendor carefully, we can keep our systems out of landfills and make sure they are properly recycled and disposed of at the end of their life cycles. All assets that we send for recycling/remarketing to Redemtech go through a discovery and registry process where they are inventoried (including all asset specifications), their condition and quality are evaluated, and they are registered in Redemtech’s tracking system. This allows us to track our assets from purchase through recycling, even when they are no longer on campus. Figure 3 shows a flowchart of the entire asset management process, tracking computers at the University of Richmond from purchase through disposal — from cradle to grave.
As the technology environment here at the University of Richmond grows, so does the need for changes in asset management. While the current asset management system has worked well for several years, we are now at a stage where we need a tool that does more. Soon we will be deploying a new system that will encompass all platforms and provide better software licensing management. At the University of Richmond, increasing the efficiency of our asset management processes contributes directly to sustainability as well as to our bottom line. Today most organizations are expected to be budget conscious and green at the same time. Our program, while not perfect, does a pretty good job of keeping these important objectives in balance.. © 2009 Wendy Burchard. The text of this article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 license. |
![]() |
||||||||||||
| Unless otherwise noted, EDUCAUSE holds the copyright on all materials published by the association, whether in print or electronic form. In certain cases the work remains the intellectual property of the individual author(s) (see Special Circumstances). Content from conference speeches, presentations, blogs, wikis and feeds reflect the opinions of the author, and not necessarily those of EDUCAUSE or its members. | |||||||||||||||